Main Menu

What Ruffley told Taitz about Klayman headed for a jury

Orly Taitz repeated what Judicial Watch office administrator Constance Ruffley said about Larry Klayman. Ruffley reportedly said that Klayman had been convicted of criminal failure to pay child support, when in fact he was only indicted for that offense.

Klayman claimed defamation and sued Judicial Watch for damages. Now a jury will hear the defamation per se portion of the case and decide. Read more at Courthouse News Service.

Print Friendly

, , ,

17 Responses to What Ruffley told Taitz about Klayman headed for a jury

  1. avatar
    Bonsall Obot June 5, 2014 at 9:15 pm #

    Wow; as every party is so vile, it’s tough to know who to root against.

    I predict KKKlayman will prevail, but be awarded token damages, since he has no good character to impugn.

  2. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 5, 2014 at 9:40 pm #

    I wonder if Orly will end up on the stand in this…

  3. avatar
    Arthur June 5, 2014 at 9:52 pm #

    Just to be clear–who exactly is Klayman suing? Judicial Watch or Orly Taitz?

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 5, 2014 at 10:04 pm #

    Judicial watch. Sorry that wasn’t clear in the article (now corrected).

    Arthur:
    Just to be clear–who exactly is Klayman suing? Judicial Watch or Orly Taitz?

  5. avatar
    bob June 5, 2014 at 10:06 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    I wonder if Orly will end up on the stand in this…

    Taitz did testify — last Friday.

    The transcript won’t be ready until September, unless someone wants to pay the big bucks to the court reporter.

  6. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 5, 2014 at 10:08 pm #

    Thanks. Although, now that I think about it, her testimony is probably pretty prosaic in this case…

    bob: Taitz did testify — last Friday.

    The transcript won’t be ready until September, unless someone wants to pay the big bucks to the court reporter.

  7. avatar
    Arthur June 5, 2014 at 10:17 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Judicial watch. Sorry that wasn’t clear in the article (now corrected).

    Thanks for the clarification!

  8. avatar
    Thinker June 5, 2014 at 10:47 pm #

    I’m not sure about this. She is not a defendant in the case, but she still has to convince sane people that she accurately reported what Ms. Ruffley said. To do that, we would have to believe that Taitz knew the difference between “indicted” and “convicted,” that she paid attention to what Ms. Ruffley said, and that she accurately reported it, even though the next sentence in her erroneous post–”I will publish only, what is a public record.”–is unquestionably wrong. Whether or not she wrote what Ruffley actually said (and I don’t think we will ever know for sure whether she did or not), I think a narcissist like Taitz doesn’t take kindly to having what little is left of her integrity challenged. If Klayman loses this case, it will probably be because the jury didn’t believe Taitz (which they shouldn’t, IMO). I’m sure she would see it as a stain on her otherwise stellar reputation for honesty, although we probably won’t get a good screech out of it because she apparently is listening to a real lawyer on this.

    Slartibartfast:
    Thanks.Although, now that I think about it, her testimony is probably pretty prosaic in this case…

  9. avatar
    Northland10 June 5, 2014 at 11:30 pm #

    Arthur:
    Just to be clear–who exactly is Klayman suing? Judicial Watch or Orly Taitz?

    Just to be clear, even though he filed a lawsuit and requested relief from the court, he really is not suing anybody. He entire purpose is to continue to harass Judicial Watch. The lawsuit is just his vehicle.

  10. avatar
    bgansel9 June 5, 2014 at 11:33 pm #

    You mean they may have finally found a case where they can proceed to discovery?

  11. avatar
    Notorial Dissent June 5, 2014 at 11:38 pm #

    OK, I’m confused here, more than normal at any rate.

    Kkklayman is caliming he has been defamed by Judicial Watch as I understand it. He is claiming that Ruffley, as a Judicial Watch officer, principal, person of authority ???? told Taitz that he had been “convicted” of “criminal failure to pay child support” rather than that he had only been “indicted”. That is at least my understanding of it.

    Now comes the confused part. As far as I am aware, Ruffley is nothing more than basically a receptionist/warm body at the office she is at. So how can Judicial Watch be held responsible for something she “allegedly” told Taitz? Now I could see if he wanted to sue her individually, if he could prove it, but I just don’t see the connection back to Judicial Watch.

    To my thinking, the entirety of his case depends on him convincing the jury that Taitz accurately reported what she was told, in the first place, and that somehow Judicial Watch through an employee intentionally gave out this information.

    I just can’t see anyone taking Taitz as being honest, so if she claims that Ruffalo told her that then I wouldn’t believe her and the suit should fail at that point, at least it would with me.

    Six impossible things before breakfast, but really???????

  12. avatar
    DSM June 5, 2014 at 11:55 pm #

    Thinker
    June 5, 2014
    I’m not sure about this. She is not a defendant in the case, but she still has to convince sane people that she accurately reported what Ms. Ruffley said. To do that, we would have to believe that Taitz knew the difference between “indicted” and “convicted,” that she paid attention to what Ms. Ruffley said, and that she accurately reported it, even though the next sentence in her erroneous post–”I will publish only, what is a public record.”–is unquestionably wrong. Whether or not she wrote what Ruffley actually said (and I don’t think we will ever know for sure whether she did or not), I think a narcissist like Taitz doesn’t take kindly to having what little is left of her integrity challenged. If Klayman loses this case, it will probably be because the jury didn’t believe Taitz (which they shouldn’t, IMO). I’m sure she would see it as a stain on her otherwise stellar reputation for honesty, although we probably won’t get a good screech out of it because she apparently is listening to a real lawyer on this.

    *******************

    I think your analysis is spot on. If Ruffley denies telling Orly that Klayman was convicted presumably the matter would come down to Orly’s credibility. And that is precious little to base a defamation action on.

    Most any trial lawyer would salivate at the opportunity to take Taitz on X-exam. Juries detest attorneys and this case presents a twofer: Orly and Larry. Interesting to see whether the trial judge allowed impeachment regarding the $20 k sanction imposed by the federal judge in prior litigation.

    Still waiting to see how the California State Bar handles that matter. Not the type of sanction they are likely to overlook.

  13. avatar
    bob June 6, 2014 at 2:46 am #

    Notorial Dissent:

    Now comes the confused part. As far as I am aware, Ruffley is nothing more than basically a receptionist/warm body at the office she is at. So how can Judicial Watch be held responsible for something she “allegedly” told Taitz? Now I could see if he wanted to sue her individually, if he could prove it, but I just don’t see the connection back to Judicial Watch.

    Ruffley is the “office manager” for Judicial Watch’s “West Coast office,” which consists of … Ruffley and one part-time attorney. Nonetheless, Klayman will attempt to paint Ruffley as Judicial Watch’s field marshal. In depositions, Judicial Watch’s actual directors testified they had no idea Ruffley went to the event, or spoke to Taitz. And Ruffley testified in her deposition that she doesn’t recall whether she said “indicted” or “convicted.”

    As for Klayman, his entire case depends on the jury believing Taitz.

    The really interesting part of case involves damages. Klayman contends Ruffley’s statement to Taitz (and Taitz’s subsequent republication) caused donors to shy away from the ballot challenges (against Obama, natch) headed up by George Miller. Miller in his deposition freely admitted that he hired Klayman to litigate Obama’s eligibility, and then stiffed Klayman.

    So: Miller stiffed Klayman, not Judicial Watch. Taitz republished the statements to the world, not Judicial Watch. But who does Klayman sue?: Judicial Watch, his ex-employer.

  14. avatar
    Notorial Dissent June 6, 2014 at 4:02 am #

    Like I said, Ruffley is basically a receptionist, doesn’t represent Judicial Watch and has no part of their operations, so of course she was fronting for them, at least according to Kkklayman. I’d be hard pressed to take Orly seriously if they got around to presenting any of her efforts.

  15. avatar
    bgansel9 June 6, 2014 at 4:31 am #

    What I want to know is why a receptionist for Judicial Watch is talking to Taitz, and does she care about her position or is she in that position just to be an informant? Receptionists are not hard to replace. Loose lips might cost Ruffley her job.

  16. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) June 6, 2014 at 8:32 am #

    bgansel9: You mean they may have finally found a case where they can proceed to discovery?

    I’ve always wondered why birthers have never been stupid enough to try this stunt:
    Birther A pretends to be an Obama supporter.
    Birther B beats A up (with A’s secret permission), claiming it was his right because usurper.
    A sues B (with B’s secret permission). B defends himself as having fought evil tyranny and demands discovery into Obama documents to exonerate him.

    Of course it wouldn’t have worked, but at least one birther would’ve gotten his rear end kicked. ;)

  17. avatar
    predicto June 6, 2014 at 6:33 pm #

    Could have been worse for Larry. Orly could have talked about the child molestation allegations against Klayman as well.

    http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/09/bradlee_deans_attorney_larry_klayman_allegedly_sexually_abused_his_own_children.php